On 24 Nov 2003, at 18:08, Marc Portier wrote:
The only way to make this *really* REST-y is to pass the continuation
(not the ID, the *ENTIRE* continuation) along with the response. This
would allow complete replicability of the continuation.
at the limit this of course could mean that one needs
I don't know whether I would go as far as to characterise REST as just a
research paper, mainly because it is so influential on the W3C TAG, but Roy
Fielding echos the point Stefano makes when he notes that there are design
tradeoffs with any distributed architecture - see
On 23 Nov 2003, at 21:16, Tony Collen wrote:
There's a few interesting posts going on over at [1] regarding the use
of continuations on web.
Continuations break the back button? bah.
I tried to set one of the people commenting straight on how it works
in Cocoon, but they seems to be convinced
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 04:55:50PM +0100, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
On 23 Nov 2003, at 21:16, Tony Collen wrote:
There's a few interesting posts going on over at [1] regarding the use
of continuations on web.
Continuations break the back button? bah.
I have also a problem that maybe
Leszek Gawron wrote:
I have also a problem that maybe the same: How should one protect the
application from resubmitting the previous continuation? If user hits back
button and submits again the the form gets into inconsistent state (some
action gets called twice).
var kont =
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
On 23 Nov 2003, at 21:16, Tony Collen wrote:
There's a few interesting posts going on over at [1] regarding the use
of continuations on web.
Continuations break the back button? bah.
Yep, looks like some coins still need to fall.
On the other hand, invalidated
On 24 Nov 2003, at 17:06, Leszek Gawron wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 04:55:50PM +0100, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
On 23 Nov 2003, at 21:16, Tony Collen wrote:
There's a few interesting posts going on over at [1] regarding the
use
of continuations on web.
Continuations break the back button? bah
